Chess will never be solved, here's why

Sort:
MARattigan
Elroch wrote:

As well as the question at the end of my edited post above, consider the odd case where one player is table-base assisted and has to take advantage of the other player having given up the win by faffing around and becoming blocked from the win as a result.

Do tablebases contain enough information to enable this assisted player to force the draw? There is only a question about play that takes place before the next irreversible move - after that point normal use of the tablebase becomes optimal again.

I think the answer is no. I think there may be cases where that could be achieved but only with moves not all recommended in the Syzygy tablebase. I'll try and think of one.

Of course Syzygy effectively contains all winning positions, so if you constructed a piggy back tablebase that avoided all repeated basic rules positions in the position you describe selecting only un Syzygy winning moves, it would be quicker than considering all un legal moves. So you might consider that containing enough information. You then make only drawing moves in the resulting piggy back tablebase (which would of course be valid only for that particular position).

MARattigan
Elroch wrote:

....

Of course, the case of the 50-move rule (or similar) is similar. It can reveal when a player has faffed around to waste time to reach a position (all the time in the same tablebase - i.e. specific material), reaching a position which would be a win if he had enough moves but which is not without.

In this situation, the tablebase will tell us that the mate that would be available isn't because the 50 move rule scuppers it, but does it tell us when (and how) a player might still have a win by finding a different route, necessarily one that zeros the 50 move counter?

In an hypothetical variant of chess that implements the 50 move rule but not a repetition rule (which is what the Syzygy table assumes) then if Syzygy tells you it's scuppered under the 50 move rule it is. Syzygy effectively assumes worst case which is why it plays such weird mates as I posted here.

Positions with the type of alternate route you refer to are already taken into account and classed as wins. Syzygy plays the most inclusive alternate routes.

It could still be scuppered in competition rules chess without it telling you, which is what the KRK position under discussion was about.

1MaDamn
🤐
brayanny77

chess is life

Thee_Ghostess_Lola

goldbachs conjecture is good to go if <= (2^82,589,933) - 1. and the 4-color theorem can still easily work for USA missouri (e.g.) a 8-border state (yet 2-plane finitude quickly gets found...doncha luv compewters ?)

Thee_Ghostess_Lola

the case of the 50-move rule

some human doofus made this # up. its dum. I say throw it out for this. yee !

playerafar
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:

the case of the 50-move rule

some human doofus made this # up. its dum. I say throw it out for this. yee !

The 50 move rule is necessary.

Elroch

I have to say the idea of tablebases playing chess against each other is an amusing one. Perhaps the future of ICCF?

Elroch
playerafar wrote:
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:

the case of the 50-move rule

some human doofus made this # up. its dum. I say throw it out for this. yee !

The 50 move rule is necessary.

Not theoretically.

The practical reason for it is to avoid it being possible for a very long game in a position where it took a long time to force a 3-fold repetition. But all games run into a 3-fold repetition eventually, if no other end occurs.

Of course, the above is only a problem when one player refuses to accept a draw - draw agreement on its own deals with all needs if you can assume people will be reasonable!

MisterBogoHead
Chess is unsolved Bcs “solving” means finding ALL moves and leads to the best evaluation (assuming its accuracy is high) please note that there are more chess positions then 500,000,000 (500m) it would cost insane cash and isn’t rly worth it to solve MYBE in the far future people would have GOD computers THEN they MIGHT be able to finally solve chess. So rn is too early to try considering the storage and I’m confident that a “best strategy” might exist but you really can’t say there is a most likely to win way.
MisterBogoHead
This is like the people who solve pi, except there IS an end but it’s VERY far away from what we can handle.
JonnyM23

Chess

Dasamething0

I hope nobody remembers me, that'll be real bad. lol

NS30000

If everyone in the world stopped using their devices and started running stockfish to learn every case, we might get somewhere.

NS30000

That is, if...

MARattigan
MisterBogoHead wrote:
... note that there are more chess positions then 500,000,000 (500m) ...

Has been noted, I believe. In fact more than 500,000,001 even.

NS30000
MARattigan wrote:
MisterBogoHead wrote:
... note that there are more chess positions then 500,000,000 (500m)i...

Has been noted, I believe. In fact more than 500,000,001 even.

I bet more then 500,000,002

playerafar
Elroch wrote:
playerafar wrote:
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:

the case of the 50-move rule

some human doofus made this # up. its dum. I say throw it out for this. yee !

The 50 move rule is necessary.

Not theoretically.

The practical reason for it is to avoid it being possible for a very long game in a position where it took a long time to force a 3-fold repetition. But all games run into a 3-fold repetition eventually, if no other end occurs.

Of course, the above is only a problem when one player refuses to accept a draw - draw agreement on its own deals with all needs if you can assume people will be reasonable!

We're going to disagree again Elroch.
But we know how to disagree 'better'. Although varying on that.
Optimissed and tygxc do not know how to disagree with others.
Nor do Washi and EE and IPG.
---------------------------------------
"But all games run into a 3-fold repetition eventually, if no other end occurs."
'eventually'. Is the key word.
The 50 move rule is better for multiple reasons.
And 'draw by agreement' is inadequate in various situations - for multiple reasons too.
Elroch if you do decide to say 'you don't understand' then you are 'doing a tygxc' without realizing it.
But I forgive you in advance.
And I know you posess considerable objectivity - unlike those five 'deniers'.
Which means you're capable of considering the various factors without just micro-managing.
------------------
I could now state the various reasons why 3-fold is inferior in at least two ways and why 'draw by agreement' is inadequate for at least one reason.
----------------------
You also said 'theoretically'.
Rules are often about practicalities.
So are terminologies.
But you already know about practicalities.
We won't get anywhere arguing about things we agree on.
But those arguments can be funny though.
happy

playerafar

Got a better forum here these days!
Its clear how and why.

MEGACHE3SE
playerafar wrote:

Got a better forum here these days!
Its clear how and why.

elroch was referring to the 50 move being unnecessary in the mathematical game of chess, not the played game of chess, im pretty sure.